BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fairfield Connecticut

    License required for electrical and plumbing trades. No state license for general contracting, however, must register with the State.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    California Home Sellers Have Duty to Disclose Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/06/21)

    Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

    Don’t Do this When it Comes to Construction Liens

    Anchoring Abuse: Evolution & Eradication

    Settlement Reached in California Animal Shelter Construction Defect Case

    Empowering Success: The Advantages of Female Attorneys in Construction Defect Law

    Ahlers Distinguished As Top Super Lawyer In Washington And Nine Firm Members Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars

    Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

    Liquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.

    Update: New VOSH Maximum Penalties as of July 1

    The Investors Profiting Off Water Scarcity

    New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    Limitations: There is a Point of No Return

    $17B Agreement Streamlines Disney World Development Plans

    Who Is To Blame For Defective — And Still LEED Certified — Courthouse Square?

    Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer

    Balancing Cybersecurity Threats in Smart Cities: Is the Potential Convenience of “Smart” Intersections Worth the Risk?

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

    Construction Industry Outlook: Building a Better Tomorrow

    Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

    Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

    EPA Expands Energy Star, Adds Indoor airPLUS

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    California Mechanics’ Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground

    Does the Russia Ukraine War Lead to a Consideration in Your Construction Contracts?

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

    Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    In Phoenix, Crews Thread Needle With $730M Broadway Curve Revamp

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Have No Class(ification)”

    Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports

    Lennar Profit Tops Estimates as Home Prices Increase

    Insurance and Your Roof

    The Hunton Policyholder’s Guide to Artificial Intelligence: SEC’s Recent AI-Washing Claims Present D&O Risks, Potential Coverage Challenges

    Digitalizing the Construction Site – Interview with Tenderfield’s Jason Kamha

    CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    2023 Construction Outlook: Construction Starts Expected to Flatten

    Rhode Island Sues 13 Industry Firms Over Flawed Interstate Bridge

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    Wall Street’s Palm Beach Foray Fuels Developer Office Rush
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Late Notice Bars Insured's Claim for Loss Caused by Hurricane

    October 24, 2022 —
    The court found that the failure to provide prompt notice of damage caused by Hurricane Irma barred plaintiff's claim for coverage. Garcia v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149312 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2022). On September 10, 2017, plaintiff's property allegedly suffered damage due to Hurricane Irma. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff observed a water stain on the ceiling of the bedroom which was painted over. She did not take any pictures of the water stain before repainting. Plaintiff reported to her experts that she observed other water stains in various areas in 2017, 2018 and 2019, and that she painted over them each time. She again observed water stains in several rooms in 2020, at which time she became aware of the magnitude of the problem and went to an attorney. Plaintiff did not report her claim until May 27, 2020. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Delaware Supreme Court Choice of Law Ruling Vacates a $13.7 Million Verdict Against Travelers

    August 07, 2018 —
    On July 16, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court held in Travelers Indemnity Company v. CNH Industrial America, LLC, No. 420, 2017 (Del. Jul. 16, 2018), that a court’s choice of law inquiry in an insurance coverage dispute should focus on the contacts most relevant to the insurance contract rather than the location of the underlying claims. In Travelers, CNH Industrial America, LLC (CNH), sought coverage for asbestos liabilities associated with J.I. Case, Inc., a subsidiary it had acquired, under policies issued to J.I. Case and its former parent company, Tenneco, Inc. The issue before the Delaware Supreme Court was whether the anti-assignment clause in three Travelers policies issued to Tenneco, Inc. precluded the assignment of the policies to CNH. The validity of the assignment turned on which state’s law governed the dispute. (Under Wisconsin law, the parties agreed that the assignment was valid, while under Texas law, the parties agreed the assignment was invalid.) Reprinted courtesy of Gregory Capps, White and Williams LLP and Zachery Roth, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Measure of Damages in Negligent Procurement of Surety Bonds / Insurance

    September 04, 2018 —
    My broker procured the wrong insurance and I am exposed to a loss. My broker failed to procure proper insurance and I am exposed to a loss. “Where the parties enter into an agreement to procure insurance and there is a negligent failure to do so, an insurance broker may be liable for damages.” The Lexington Club Community Association, Inc. v. Love Madison, Inc., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1860a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). The proper measure of damages in a negligent procurement of insurance claim is “what would have been covered had the insurance been properly obtained.” Id. quoting Gelsomino v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 207 So.3d 288, 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). This measure of damages in a negligent procurement of insurance claim is important because it is the measure of damages that dictates recoverable damages under this claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Nebraska Court of Appeals Vacates Arbitration Award for Misconduct

    November 18, 2024 —
    Vacating an arbitration award is often seen as an uphill battle. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “courts may only vacate an arbitrator’s decision ‘only in very unusual circumstances.’” Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 568 (2013). The Federal Arbitration Act provides limited grounds to seek the vacatur of an arbitration award. In Lund-Ross Constructors v. Duke of Omaga, LLC, ___ N.W.3d ___, 33 Neb.App.73, the Nebraska Court of Appeals found that an arbitrator’s conduct warranted the partial vacatur of the award, which granted relief to a subcontractor who filed a counterclaim after the arbitration hearing had closed. Lund-Ross contracted with Duke of Omaha to build an apartment complex in Omaha. Lund-Ross, in turn, sub-contracted with A Raymond Plumbing. Following completion of the building, Owner withheld payment from Lund-Ross, who in turn, withheld payment from Raymond. Both Lund-Ross and Raymond filed mechanics liens and initiated suits; Raymond’s suit ultimately was dismissed for want of prosecution. Lund-Ross proceeded to arbitration with Owner, naming Raymond as a respondent. Raymond did not participate in the arbitration as a claimant at the time of the hearing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLP
    Mr. Witry may be contacted at bwitry@lauriebrennan.com

    A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher

    February 27, 2023 —
    As those who read Construction Law Musings on a regular basis know, mechanic’s liens are a big part of my construction law practice. These tricky and strictly enforced statutory collection tools are very powerful when correctly recorded and utterly useless if they aren’t recorded in a timely fashion and with the correct information contained within them. Couple that fact with recent changes to the mechanic’s lien form in 2019, and I feel the need to give a quick refresher. If you’ve kept up with Musings, you know about the two big numbers for Virginia mechanic’s lien timing, 90 and 150. These should be kept in mind for every general contractor, subcontractor, or supplier on any construction project in Virginia. Virginia Code Section 43-4 sets out the reasons to keep these numbers in mind. The code section sets out why you need to know these numbers. The 90 refers to the deadline for recording a lien. This number affects the right to a lien in Virginia. In order to preserve lien rights, a construction contractor must record the lien within ninety days of the last day of the last month in which the last work was performed or no later than ninety days from the date of completion of the project or other termination of work. The short version is that most general contractors on commercial projects have 90 days from the last work in which to record their lien and most subcontractors have 90 days from the last day of the last month of work. However, the best practice is to simply calculate the 90 days from the last work performed or material supplied to avoid issues and arguments between attorneys regarding timing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tender Is the Fight”

    August 21, 2023 —
    A performance bond surety for a defaulted general contractor principal found itself with a recalcitrant owner which refused to accept the tender of a replacement general contractor to complete a $3,000,000 construction project in Monmouth County, New Jersey. Even before the original GC was off the job, the surety – having been notified of the contractor’s difficulties in performing the work – stepped in promptly, providing assistance in the form of an additional contractor. At the surety’s behest, that additional contractor remained on the project (focused principally at the time on roof repairs) after the initial GC was placed in default and terminated. Eventually, the surety, by draft tender agreement issued to the owner, offered that the additional contractor serve as the completion contractor for the entire project (not simply the roof repairs), a proposal rejected by the owner – which had never cared for the additional contractor. Instead, the owner proposed its own completion contractor and, in connection with that offer, demanded a sum of money ($1.6 million) from the surety – a proposal the surety rejected: “[Owner] cannot choose whatever contractor it wants to complete the work and then charge the costs to [the surety]." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    April 19, 2021 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained summary judgment in favor of defendant SRI Fire Sprinkler, LLC, a family-owned and operated fire sprinkler company which generally provides fire sprinkler installation, inspection, and maintenance services throughout the Northeast and New England. The judgment was determined pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the grounds that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s (Plaintiff) negligent construction claim accrued on the date when work was completed at the premises, not on the date of the incident as alleged in the Plaintiff’s complaint. In the underlying subrogation action, the Plaintiff commenced the action in subrogation of its insured, Bet Am Shalom Synagogue (Bet Am), to recover damages in excess of $173,390.86 which it allegedly paid to Bet Am for water damage cleanup and remodeling after certain sprinkler pipes froze and burst in the recently constructed wing of the Westchester synagogue on January 1, 2019 and January 7, 2019. The Plaintiff alleged that its subrogor, Bet Am, sustained interior water damage on the first floor and basement levels of the premises, including the carpets, drywall, insulation, bathroom, kitchen and appliances, dining room, hallways, closets, basement storage rooms and supplies, and basement classrooms. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
    Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    August 26, 2015 —
    Consumer confidence climbed more than forecast in August to the second-highest level in eight years as Americans held more favorable views of the labor market. The Conference Board’s index rose to 101.5 this month from a revised July reading of 91, the New York-based private research group said Tuesday. The gauge exceeded the highest estimate in a Bloomberg survey of economists, whose median forecast was 93.4. The cutoff date for the survey was Aug. 13, before the recent stock-market sell-off. Americans remained emboldened by job gains, cheaper gasoline and rising home prices in the period leading up to a slump in stock prices as global financial markets took a turn for the worse. The risk for the economy is that households will reassess their spending plans as they wait for evidence the U.S. expansion can withstand such shocks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg